Ahmed v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 905

Ahmed v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 905

The appeal had no merit because the subclass 457 nomination approval could not satisfy the distinct subclass 856 requirement for approval under reg 5.19; the nomination for the subclass 856 visa had been refused, so the appellants could not meet the visa criteria. The Tribunal also complied with the procedural requirements of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) because it invited comment on the relevant adverse information through the authorised recipient, gave an extension, and no response was provided; notice to the authorised recipient was effective under s 494D.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia Concerning Refusal of a Class BW (employer Nomination Scheme), Subclass 856 Visa Application / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['employer Nomination Scheme Subclass 856 Visa' 'employer Nomination Approval' 'migration Review Tribunal Procedure' 'authorised Recipient' 'procedural Fairness']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['employer Nomination Scheme Subclass 856 Visa' 'employer Nomination Approval' 'migration Review Tribunal Procedure' 'authorised Recipient' 'procedural Fairness']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia Concerning Refusal of a Class BW (employer Nomination Scheme), Subclass 856 Visa Application / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellants could satisfy the criteria for a subclass 856 visa where the employer nomination had not been approved in accordance with regulation 5.19.' 'Whether an approval connected with a subclass 457 visa remained sufficient for a subclass 856 visa application.' 'Whether the Migration Review Tribunal breached s 425 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) by deciding without inviting the appellants to appear.' 'Whether notice to Mr Khan as authorised recipient was effective under s 494D of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal had no merit because the subclass 457 nomination approval could not satisfy the distinct subclass 856 requirement for approval under reg 5.19; the nomination for the subclass 856 visa had been refused, so the appellants could not meet the visa criteria. The Tribunal also complied with the procedural requirements of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) because it invited comment on the relevant adverse information through the authorised recipient, gave an extension, and no response was provided; notice to the authorised recipient was effective under s 494D.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' "The first appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal."]